US Virgin Islands in 2017

The presentation below entitled “US Virgin Islands 2017” was made by Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, International Advisor on Democratic Governance, to a conference on Virgin Islands 2020 sponsored by the Virgin Islands Institute of Development which convened at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on 27th June 2008. The text of the presentation was made available by permission.

Introduction

Barring any extraordinary political developments over the next several years, the US Virgin Islands in the year 2017 will observe the centennial under United States jurisdiction as an unincorporated territory. This is less than a decade away. The constitutional conventions in the territory which convened in the 1960s and 1970s to draft a local constitution based on the present political status did not culminate in a local constitution. Subsequent attempts to deal with the broader picture of modernising the political status of the territory in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in an inconclusive referendum in 1993. Thus, the US Virgin Islands reverted to the current status quo, and is one of sixteen remaining dependent territories/colonies in the world nine years before the centennial.

An Historical Context

At the turn of the 20th Century, a number of European countries had vast territorial holdings in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean and elsewhere. Virtually all of Africa was under the control of European powers which carved up the continent with the aim of taking the human and material wealth of Africa to fuel European prosperity. Much the same applied in the Pacific region where territories were acquired as the spoils of war, as in the case of Guam and the Philippines after the defeat of Spain in 1899. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) administered by the US under a United Nations mandate emerged as three separate military-strategic associate states on the one hand (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau), and an initially-autonomous territorial status on the other hand (Northern Marianas).

The US Virgin Islands had a similar history, spending many more years under Danish jurisdiction as has been spent thus far under the United States. Indeed, the transfer from Denmark to the U.S. was done in the form of a land purchase by way of the 1917 Treaty of Cession.

At the end of WWII, many of the territories acquired by the developed countries still remained as colonial possessions. Part of the reason for the creation of the United Nations in 1945 was to address the disposition of these territories. Since then, over eighty territories have achieved a full measure of self-government, either through integration with another country with full political rights, free association with another country or political independence.

All of these self-governing models exist in the Caribbean. In addition to the independent countries, the French West Indies of Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana are examples of political integration, while the former territories of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba achieved free association with the Netherlands. These are the three forms of genuine self-government with minimum standards set by the United Nations in its resolutions.

Other territories like Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and others have internationally recognised political arrangements with substantial autonomy, while also enjoying full representation in the parliament of the cosmopolitan country with which they share citizenship.

Still others are progressing in stages. The Caribbean/Atlantic territories of the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands have new constitutions, but have not yet achieved full internal self-government. The Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and Anguilla are in varying stages of constitutional review leading to a modernised territorial status. Bermuda with its advanced political status views independence as an eventuality. Puerto Rico continues to pressure Congress – and now the United Nations – to come to a final determination as to the self-governing nature of its commonwealth arrangement, or whether it should move towards the permanent alternatives of statehood, free association or independence.

U.S. Virgin Islands

Amidst these political developments in the region, the US Virgin Islands is in the midst of its fifth attempt to draft a local constitution based on the present status. Invariably, the question of the relationship of a constitution with a final determination on political status has once again arisen.

Many have supported the view that the political status of the territory should be addressed first, with a constitution written subsequently based on the chosen status. Since the present dependency status was never meant to be permanent, as it is not sufficiently autonomous, a permanent status should be achieved at some point. A local constitution based on the present status will not solve this dilemma. Integration as one of the fifty states would suffice. It would be more likely, however, that such an unlikely move to integration would be as a part of an existing state, in consideration of the small population of the US Virgin Islands, as well as similar ethnic considerations which hampered US Congressional consideration of statehood for Puerto Rico in the 1990s. Other alternatives such as independence and free association are also viable alternatives, but it would only be through an updated analysis on the implications of these options of political equality that the people would be able to make an informed decision.

Territorial lawmakers, however, have chosen the approach of writing a local constitution. This has provided an opportunity for public discussion on political and constitutional issues which would not have ordinarily been examined. Since the first and only political status referendum of 1993, no public discourse had been held on these issues until 2006 when the University of the Virgin Islands received a mandate to begin a political education process.

Both the political status education process of the 1990s, and the present constitutional convention, have at least one thing in common – in both cases, the US Government, as the duly authorized administering power under the United Nations (UN) Charter, rejected requests for financial assistance from the territorial government to conduct a sustainable public education programme. This rejection was extraordinary given the specific international legal obligations of the US under Article 73 (b) of the UN Charter to actively promote self-government in the territories under its administration. This denial of assistance coincides with the support provided internationally for the promotion of specific forms of democratic governance in many countries throughout the world, and is a disappointing indication of the apparent low level of priority given to the political development of the territories via a process of self-determination.

Perhaps a President Obama government, if successful in the November 2008 election in the US, would re-consider the importance of fulfilling the US international obligations to the self-government of the territories, given the overwhelming support enjoyed by that candidate in the territory, even as the territories have no voting rights in US elections. This democratic deficiency is a feature of the dependency status. It should be noted that political promises were made by both US Democratic Party candidates Barack Obama and Hilliary Clinton in advance of the democratic primary in Puerto Rico to address the political status dilemma in that territory. No such promises of support for political status development in the US Virgin Islands have been reported by any of the US political candidates - perhaps because no such political status dilemma is recognised.

The Difference between States and Territories

As the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands proceeds to draft a document for review by Washington, an important point to be taken into account is that a constitution for a dependent territory, is not the same as a constitution for an integrated state of the US. This is simply because a territory is not a state. A territorial constitution may be structured as a state with governors, legislatures, state directors and state plans. There is a territorial government office in the Hall of the States in Washington, for example. All this, of course, does not make for a state, but it does feed the mis-perception that the territory is a sort of “virtual state.”

The reality is quite to the contrary, since a dependent territory does not have the political power of a state through voting rights in the US House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Persons in the US Virgin Islands, or in any of the other four US-administered territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico do not have voting rights for the US President. Perhaps as a means of confirmation of their international personality, territories do have “sports autonomy,” and send athletic teams to international competition such as the Olympic Games, the South Pacific Games, the Pan American Games and other international athletic competitions where countries are represented separately. Thus, the category of Non-Independent Countries (NICs) was created within the United Nations system at the beginning of the 1990s to distinguish these dependencies from integrated parts of other countries.

A fundamental difference between integrated states or departments, and the territories is that the dependencies are governed by the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution. States are not. The full US constitution applies only to states, whereas in territories, only the fundamental parts of the US constitution apply. In 1991, the US General Accounting Office produced an article-by-article analysis of which provisions of the US Constitution apply, and which do not - so that the limitations would be clear.

Thus, the system of US dependency governance is underpinned by the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution which gives the US Congress the power to legislate for the territories without their consent, and often above their objection. Unilateral changes in the economic development incentives programme in the US Virgin Islands is one of the most recent example of the use of this practice. Various United Nations reports in recent years have determined that as long as this unilateral authority exists, a territory could not be considered self-governing.

This contrasts, for example, with the autonomy enjoyed by other territories. Greenland and its relationship with Denmark, for example, provides a clear distinction between a sufficient measure of self-government and political dependency. Greenland has the authority to determine, with a few exceptions, which Danish laws and treaties apply to it, while at the same time sharing Danish citizenship and sending voting members to the Danish Parliament. Such a mutual consent provision was included in the US Virgin Islands proposed commonwealth arrangement which was one of the political status options before the voters in 1993. The option provided the opportunity for in-depth discussion on the elements of autonomy, but was cut short due to internal political considerations favouring the status quo.

The Autonomous Alternative

It is rather disappointing that the “strict interpretationists” of the US Constitution generally dismiss as “out of hand” for the US-administered territories anything approaching the level of autonomy enjoyed by Greenland, the Netherlands Antilles or other autonomous territories. Guam found this out the hard way in the 1990s with the US rejection of its autonomous commonwealth status proposal after years of expensive negotiations.

The Northern Mariana Islands is also experiencing this in 2008 as it is attempting to adjust to a significant reversal of what was once considered a model autonomous relationship. Legislation has even been introduced in the Marianas Legislature to review the present political arrangement, although the level of support for the measure is not clear, especially given that the new arrangement will provide for a “non-voting delegate” like the other four territories. Substantial political interest in the new elected position of non-voting delegate, however, has diverted attention from the projected negative economic implications of the “reverse delegation” of power. For its part, the Northern Marianas Government is considering whether to file a legal complaint against the US Government over this reversal of autonomy, specifically as related to the removal of the territory’s power to control its labour laws.

To their credit, members of the US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention are seeking to introduce varying degrees of creative autonomy in the draft constitution, within the very real limitations of the enabling federal legislation which requires that the constitution must be under the sovereignty of the U.S. This approach may serve to define the parameters of territorial status in 2008, as far as the level of autonomy that can be achieved as an unincorporated territory. It would be a strategic move to extend the time of the Fifth Constitutional Convention to allow sufficient time for a draft constitution to be submitted to a possible Democratic Party Justice Department, which may be a bit more flexible on these issues than the present Bush Administration. Then again, any new government in Washington could simply rely on the pre-existing interpretations of the federal bureaucracy which have prevailed for the last several decades. Indeed, it was the Republican – led US Congress which had shielded the Marianas from a Democratic Party-led political assault on its autonomy. The shield was dissolved when the US Congress changed hands.

One thing is certain. There is little consistency in the parameters setting the level of autonomy permitted in an unincorporated territory. An autonomous power obtained in the 1980s by the Northern Marianas to control immigration and enact their own labor laws through exemptions from federal law might not be necessarily permitted, if requested by other territories in 2008.

References in the Puerto Rico Constitution adopted in 1952 on issues such as Puerto Rican citizenship, the Spanish language and residency requirements for holding office, were endorsed by the US Congress of that time, but this was achieved in a different era. Would they be achievable in 2008 – especially in view of the findings of the two Bush White House Reports on Puerto Rico in 2005 and 2007 which served to re-define Puerto Rico’s status as less autonomous than originally perceived ? The governor of Puerto Rico spoke on the ramifications of these issues at the United Nations Decolonisation Committee earlier this year.

Autonomous provisions related to land ownership and native rights in the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Covenant with the US might prove unattainable in other territories today – even as an important issue continues to be the loss of land by the native population in the US Virgin Islands amid rising land values fueled by external investment and land speculation.

The US Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention is also seeking to address the very essence of self-definition which is a necessary prerequisite to self-government. One proposal identifies a native Virgin Islander as a descendent of those specifically mentioned in the Treaty of Cession of 1917 as the inhabitants of the territory at that time. A reference to this group of original Virgin Islanders, in the Preamble of the draft constitution, would be appropriate as an acknowledgement of the origins of a people who were overwhelmingly of African descent, and who had been recognised at the time of the transfer from Denmark to US jurisdiction. The recognition of the cultural identity of a people should not be confused with the citizenship conferred upon them. It is to be recalled that US citizenship was not granted to the native Virgin Islander immediately at the transfer, but only following ten years of statelessness.

Political Status Modernization

In any case, the US Virgin Islands will have to organize a mechanism sooner, rather than later, to modernize its political status after the completion of its fifth internal constitutional exercise. Prior to that, there had been several political status initiatives consistent with a 1979 policy of US President Jimmy Carter. These initiatives included a Status Commission headed by the former Senator Earle B. Ottley in the early 1980s, followed by a Committee of the Legislature chaired by former Senator Lorraine L. Berry in the mid 1980s. Neither of these two bodies succeeded in conducting a referendum, but did create an important body of research.

The latest Status Commission, created in 1988 by Gov. Alexander A. Farrelly, succeeded in facilitating the only referendum in US Virgin Islands history on political status options in 1993. However, the vote failed to receive the required 50 % of those registered, and the result was declared null and void. The territory, therefore, reverted to the status quo political option, by default. The people did not vote in favour of it, as it is often erroneously projected.

The deep emotions generated in the public during the status discussions, which were often fueled by mis-information on the ramifications of the options, created a serious vacuum of dialogue on issues of political development for over a decade. No legislation was introduced, and no public discussions were held during that period. There is also a serious question as to whether any of the recent history of the referendum process has been adequately and accurately reflected in the historical record.

Thus, it wasn’t until 2004, or some eleven year after the political status referendum, that a bill was adopted to create a Fifth Constitutional Convention – not to deal again with the overriding political status question, but rather to try to draft a constitution based on the present dependency status.

Looking Forward

This is the state of play in 2008, as the territory moves with all deliberate speed towards the centennial – 2017. Will the US Virgin Islands remain as an un-incorporated dependency, albeit with a constitution? Will there be renewed emphasis on addressing the political status options, and will there be a final status determined? Or will we consider a dependency constitution the end of the political development – notwithstanding the continued applicability of the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution?

In a broader sense, are the minimum requirements of democratic legitimacy met by a political system of governance which maintains unilateral authority over a territory by a government in which the territory has no voting rights?

Do the people have a problem with being equated with “territory or other property,” and referred to in legislation as offshore possessions, insular areas, and similar terms which many consider insensitive given the historical legacy of slavery?

These are a few questions fundamental to the future political development of the US Virgin Islands. Is the society comfortable with the present arrangement as an unincorporated territory whose government, according to a federal court ruling, exists only by the “legislative grace of Congress?” If so, then there should be no surprise when laws, regulations and other decisions continue to be unilaterally applied, without the consent of the governed, and often against their wishes with unknown economic repercussions. I

But if an awareness is developed among the people and its leadership that the dependency status has become anachronistic, then much work lies ahead. In the first instance, there would have to be a process formulated to sensitize the society of the existing democratic deficiencies inherent in the prevailing dependency status. This would be followed by the development of a viable, democratic model of a full measure of self-government for the 21st Century based on internationally recognised standards of full political equality and democratic governance.

By the year 2017, the world should know whether the people would have chosen action or acquiescence.

National Geographic Magazine Reviews 'Last Colonies'

The prestigious National Geographic in its June 2008 edition published an article on the remaining sixteen non self-governing territories worldwide. The article entitled “Last Colonies” was written by National Geographic columnist Karen E. Lange and provides a succinct description of the state-of-play in the decolonisation process as the world approaches the 50th anniversary since the adoption of the landmark Decolonisation Declaration of 1960.

The article also provides factual historical, demographic and political information on each of the sixteen territories with references from the World Factbook of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the New York Times,our own Overseas Territories Report, the United Nations and the New Zealand Herald.

The article can be accessed at:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Last_Colonies

UN Member States Call for UN System to Implement Decolonisation Activities

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation concluded its 2008 session with strong calls for a major re-vamping of the Committee’s methods of work, and the implementation by the United Nations system of the activities it has been directed by the General Assembly to carry out over the last two decades, but have inexplicably been permitted by the member states to ignore. The following excerpts from the United Nations press release provide some insight on the closing session. These excerpts are followed by the verbatim closing statement of the Representative of St. Lucia.

A political analysis of the results of the 2008 session including an assessment of the Pacific Regional Seminar held in Indonesia, and of the main resolutions adopted by the Special Committee is forthcoming.


Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on Decolonization
11th Meeting (AM)

Excerpts from United Nations Press Release

CONCLUDING SESSION, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES TWO TEXTS

ON NEW CALEDONIA, TOKELAU; HEARS APPEALS TO HEED CRITICISM OF ITS WORK

At the conclusion of the meeting, several speakers noted that the Special Committee had heard a number of criticisms from representatives and petitioners from Non-Self-Governing Territories. The representative of the Congo warned that the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001–2010) would end without any substantial progress and that, while decolonization had been one of the Organization’s great success stories, the situation of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories could become the Achilles heel of that success.

The 2008 session had been an important wake-up call, Saint Lucia’s representative said, cautioning that the critics of the Committee’s work should be seriously taken into account. Unless the criticism was addressed in earnest, the very future of the decolonization process would be in jeopardy, and that was unacceptable.

In his closing remarks, Committee Chairman Marty M. Natalegawa of Indonesia said that the Special Committee’s work in the area of decolonization must focus on tangible results for the benefit of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Various constructive feedback and even concerns expressed by many stakeholders should also be taken into account. Only two and a half years remained of the Second International Decade. That highlighted the urgency of giving all possible help to the Non-Self-Governing Territories in establishing conditions that would enable them to demonstrate their will on the issue of their respective status through a valid, internationally recognized act of self-determination.

If there was one conclusion one could draw from the session, he said, it was surely that the Special Committee had to strive to find new, more proactive ways of going about its important work -– through improved cooperation with administering Powers and in full recognition of the aspirations and interests of the people and Governments of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, on a case-by-case basis.

LUC JOSPEH OKIO (Congo) said he had been following the Committee’s work for some six years and had participated in seminars and visiting missions, during which he had had the chance to listen to and learn of the pain and despair of the people in non-self-governing territories, their expectations of the Committee and the United Nations, and sometimes their disappointment. For some time now, he had started to wonder about his responsibility, his country’s and the Committee’s, especially as representatives and petitioners from non-self-governing territories had stepped up their criticism of the Committee.

He said that the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001–2010) would end without any substantial progress. While decolonization had been one of the great success stories, the situation of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories could become the Achilles heel of that success. He had not lost hope that the Special Committee, together with the administering Powers, would be able to come up with the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate. As long as the right to self-determination was considered a basic human right, colonialism would be considered an anachronism.

MICHELLE JOSEPH ( Saint Lucia) welcomed the achievements in Tokelau and expressed appreciation for the support of the administering Power. Her delegation was aware of the complexities of the Special Committee’s role and the difficulties it encountered, however, it appeared that the 2008 session had been an important wake-up call. The Committee had heard a number of criticisms over the lack of implementation of the decolonization mandate. Recognizing that the Committee could not do it alone, she had to say that there were specific activities that it had not carried out sufficiently since the First Decade to Eradicate Colonialism, which had begun in 1992. The critics of the Committee’s work should be seriously taken into account. Unless the criticism was addressed in earnest, the very future of the decolonization process would be in jeopardy, and that was unacceptable.

She said that the plan of the implementation of the decolonization mandate had been recognized by the General Assembly as an important legislative authority for the attainment of self-determination by the Non-Self-Governing Territories by 2010. However, the plan had gone largely ignored. Further, development of the case-by-case plan for each Territory had not been initiated. There was also a provision for special procedures through independent expertise to undertake analytical work, but based on the budgetary considerations, that work had also not been undertaken. Special procedures might be accommodated through existing resources, but no programme budget implication had been undertaken in that regard.

The present mechanism could not lead to implementation of the decolonization mandate and it appeared to be too inflexible, she said. The Special Committee needed to seriously examine that situation, with the aim of changing it. Decolonization was now at a critical stage, two short years before the end of the Second Decade. The time had come for the Committee to regroup along the lines that the General Assembly had provided.

Concluding the 2008 session, Chairman of the Special Committee, MARTY M. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia), underlined his firm belief that the Special Committee’s work in the area of decolonization must focus on tangible results for the benefit of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Committee had a responsibility to do everything possible, with a view to achieving real progress towards complete eradication of colonialism in application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, subsequent General Assembly resolutions and the principles and provisions of the Charter. Various constructive feedback, and the concerns expressed by many stakeholders, should also be taken into account. Only two and a half years remained of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. That highlighted the urgency of giving all possible help to Non-Self-Governing Territories in establishing conditions that would enable them to demonstrate their will on the issue of their respective status through a valid, internationally recognized act of self-determination.

The Special Committee, for its part, through the so-called “omnibus” resolution dealing with 11 of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, had asked the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly’s sixty-fourth session on the implementation of the decolonization resolutions adopted in connection with the First and Second Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism. In contributing to that report, Member States would have the occasion to take stock of the support given to Non-Self-Governing Territories in their quest for decolonization. That exercise would afford the opportunity to review those efforts and chart the way forward. In that connection, he also noted the efforts by the Special Committee in its work on the omnibus resolution this year, which had been crafted to encourage an action-oriented approach on each of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, with a view to facilitating a comparative understanding of where each of the Territories stood on the path to decolonization. Additionally, throughout the session, the Committee had endorsed 10 other resolutions, three reports and would submit all relevant information and documents to the Assembly for its consideration through the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).

Much preparatory work had laid the foundation for the Committee’s 2008 substantive session, he added. He would particularly like to express the Committee’s gratitude for the working papers prepared by the Secretariat, as well as the efforts that had gone into the Pacific regional seminar in Bandung, Indonesia, in May. If there was one conclusion one could draw from the session, it would surely be that the Special Committee had to strive to find new, more proactive ways of going about its important work -– through improved cooperation with administering Powers and in full recognition of the aspirations and interests of the people and Governments of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, on a case-by-case basis.


___________________________________________________________________________________


The Statement of the Representative of St. Lucia summed up the concerns which had been increasingly expressed for a number of years by territorial governments, several member states and non governmental organisations over the lack of implementation of the decolonisation mandate of the United Nations. The St. Lucia statement is re-printed below:

SAINT LUCIA

Statement at the Closing of the 2008 Session
of the Special Committee on Decolonisation

June 2008


Mr. Chairman,

I wish to express my delegation’s appreciation for your efforts during this 2008 session of the Special Committee on Decolonization. As former chairman of this committee on two separate occasions, my delegation is well acquainted with the complexities of the Committee’s role in decolonization process, and the difficulties routinely encountered in agreeing to proactive solutions to the matters before us.

In this connection, it appears that the 2008 session has provided us with an important “wake up call.” We have heard detailed critiques of our method of work made by a number of territorial governmental and non-governmental representatives which have repeated long-held criticisms over the lack of implementation of the decolonization mandate. While we recognize that this committee cannot do it all alone, it nevertheless has very specific activities given it by the General Assembly which it has not carried out sufficiently since the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism which began in 1992.

The distinguished representative of the Congo made the point that the critiques of the work of this committee should seriously be taken into account in our future work. St. Lucia would argue further that unless these criticisms are actually addressed, in earnest, the very future of the decolonization process is in jeopardy. As a member state which itself emerged from colonialism, this is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman,

At the Organizational Session of this Committee last February, my delegation recalled that the Plan of Implementation for the Decolonisation Mandate introduced several years ago was recognised by the General Assembly as “an important legislative authority for the attainment of self-government for the territories by the end of 2010.” We pointed out, however, that this Plan had gone largely ignored, especially the studies and analyses on the evolution of self-government in each territory.

Further, the development of the case-by-case work plan for each territory has not been initiated, whilst we still await the backlog of reports on the implementation of decolonisation resolutions mandated by the General Assembly each year.

The POI also made provision for the use of special procedures through independent expertise to undertake the analytical work which had been neglected for over a decade. These special procedures were not undertaken, reportedly based on budgetary considerations. As in the case of many new proposals in the UN system, however, special procedures may be accommodated within existing resources. But since no PBI was requested, the true budgetary implications, if any, were never determined, and the proposal died.

Mr. Chairman,

We wish to be clear. Time has shown that the present mechanisms servicing this committee cannot implement the decolonisation mandate, and appear too in-flexible to engage internal and external assistance. Thus, this committee needs to seriously re-examine these mechanisms, and give effect to the required changes contained in the Plan of Implementation and the other innovative measures which have been introduced, and in some cases, adopted by the General Assembly.

We are at a critical stage in the process, two short years before the end of the Second Decade on the Eradication of Colonialism. We no longer have the luxury of time and delay. The repetition of process has not yielded significant results. It is time for this committee to re-group along the lines which the General Assembly has provided it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Several British Territories Expand International Membership

Two United Kingdom-administered territories have expanded their participation in international organisations in furtherance of the development process of these dependent territories. At the thirty-second session of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) held in the Dominican Republic, the Cayman Islands was admitted as the ninth associate member of ECLAC on 13th June 2008. A year ago, the Turks and Caicos Islands was admitted as an associate member of ECLAC, one of the five regional economic commissions of the United Nations.

ECLAC, and its counterpart Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific(ESCAP), provide associate membership for non-independent countries in their respective terms of reference. With the admission of the Cayman Islands, ECLAC now has nine associate members. Other UK-administered territories with associate membership in ECLAC include the Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands and Montserrat. The associated countries of the Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, along with the United States dependent territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are also associate members of ECLAC. Bermuda is expected to join ECLAC in 2009.

There are also nine members of ESCAP.

Associate Member Date of Admission

1. American Samoa 28 July 1988
2. Cook Islands 11 July 1972
3. French Polynesia 31 July 1992
4. Guam 24 July 1981
5. Hong Kong, China**** 25 November 1947
6. Macao, China ***** 26 July 1991
7. New Caledonia 31 July 1992
8. Niue 3 August 1979
9. Northern Mariana Islands 22 July 1986



The text of the ECLAC resolution admitting the Cayman Islands as an associate member follows:

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
Thirty-Second Session
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
9-13 June 2008

ADMISSION OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Resolution

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,

Recalling that paragraph 3(a) of the terms of reference of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean states that “Any territory, or part or group thereof, may on presentation of its application to the Commission by the member responsible for the international relations of such territory, part or group of territories, be eligible for admission by the Commission as an associate member of the Commission,”

Recognizing that the Cayman Islands enjoys close economic, cultural and social ties with the rest of the region and that it is committed to strengthening these links wherever possible,

Aware also that associate membership in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean will make a considerable contribution to the effort to achieve this goal,

Welcoming the request made by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the Cayman Islands should be granted associate membership in the Commission,

Decides that the Cayman Islands shall be admitted as an associate member of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.

***********

Several months prior, the Turks and Caicos Islands was also admitted to the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), a subsidiary body of ECLAC comprising the wider Caribbean region. It was unclear why the CDCC resolution included reference to 1997 resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and of the Economic and Social Council as part of the legislative authority, when more updated resolutions as recent as 2007 on the same subject were available.

The text of the CDCC resolution admitting the Turks and Caicos Islands as an associate member follows:

Twenty-Second Session of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC) LC/CAR/L.169
Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago
22-23 April 2008

RESOLUTION 69 (XXII)

ADMISSION OF THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE CARIBBEAN DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION COMMITTEE (CDCC)

Ministers and Heads of Delegations participating at the twenty-second session of the
CDCC,

Considering the desirability that the economic, social and cultural relations among all peoples in the Caribbean area should be strengthened;

Bearing in mind the Constituent Declaration and Functions and Rules of Procedure of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee;

Aware that the Turks and Caicos Islands was admitted as an associate member of ECLAC by resolution 628(XXXI) at its thirty-first session held in Montevideo, Uruguay, from 20 to 24 March 2006; and that this issue was subsequently brought to the attention of and endorsed by the Economic and Social Council as an integral part of the Biennial Report of ECLAC (3 July 2004 to 24 March 2006) (ECOSOC Official Records, 2006, Supplement No. 20) (E/2006/20) (LC/G.2317-P);

Noting that the Turks and Caicos Islands also participates as an associate member of the OECS, and is a member of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB);

Taking into account United Nations General Assembly resolution 52/73 of 10 December
1997 which, inter alia, requests the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, as well as regional organizations, to strengthen existing measures of support and formulate appropriate programmes of assistance to the remaining non-self-governing territories, within the framework of their respective mandates, in order to accelerate progress in the economic and social sectors of those territories;

Also taking into account United Nations General Assembly resolution 52/77 of 10
December 1997 which, inter alia, called on member States, organizations and United Nations agencies to continue to assist the Territory in social and economic development;

Cognizant that the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1997/66 of 25 July 1997
endorsed, inter alia, the participation of appointed and elected representatives of non-self governing territories in the relevant meetings and conferences of the agencies and organizations so that territories may benefit from the related activities of the United Nations system;

Welcome the participation of the Turks and Caicos Islands in the works of this Committee and for the first time in its biennial Meeting as an ECLAC/CDCC associate member.

Adopted 23rd April 2008

U.N Association of Virgin Islands Critiques UN Decolonisation Implementation

A representative of the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI), in an address before the Special Committee on Decolonisation on 11th June, presented a measured analysis of the lack of implementation of the decolonisation mandate by the United Nations. The presentation was made by Attorney Juliette Chin on behalf of UNAVI President, Attorney Judith L. Bourne. It was the only statement made on the question of the United States Virgin Islands, and the only one from a Caribbean territory. A statement was also made by Sabina Flores Perez of Guam who addressed the implications of the continued and accelerated militarisation of that Pacific territory. The elected government of the US Virgin Islands was not represented for the second year in succession, having broken a long established precedent of annual presentations to the Special Committee on Decolonisation by a representative of that territorial government dating back to 1975.

The United Nations press release on the meeting can be found at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gacol3177.doc.htm

Followng is the full statement of the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands:

_____________________________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT TO THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION
by JUDITH L. BOURNE, President
UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY.

11th June 2008
Mr. Chairman,

Please accept the compliments of The United Nations Association of
the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) to yourself and to the other distinguished members of the Special Committee. UNAVI is pleased once again to provide our perspective on the decolonization process. Due to the inability of our officers to be in New York at this time, this presentation is being read by a colleague, Attorney Juliette Chin.

UNAVI has contributed to the discussion in most of the Caribbean regional seminars up to 2006 as the only NGO in the US Virgin Islands which promotes political status development in our territory.

We are concerned about our removal from the group of NGOs normally invited to those seminars and hope that this is a mere oversight that can be corrected in 2009, and that our absence has nothing to do with any discomfort that may have been caused by the depth of our analysis regarding the failure of the UN to carry out its mandate.

Mr. Chairman,

The continued existence of sixteen territories on the UN list and the lack of substantive positive movement in this 21st century is a travesty of the purpose of this Committee, and is directly related to the lack of implementation of the decolonization mandate. Much of this is attributable to the indifference of some administering powers who sense that the member states are no longer interested in real decolonization.

But a significant part of it is due to the inaction of the United Nations system which has failed to carry out, or has inadequately carried out, the activities which this Committee has directed it to do in the annual resolutions.

One example is the resolution this committee adopted on May 27th of this year on Dissemination of Information on Decolonization. The resolution is essentially the same as other resolutions on this item since the beginning of the 1st International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in 1992, with a few additions here and there. One of these additions is reference to the information leaflet on decolonization entitled “What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non Self-Governing Territories.” This document gives the web addresses of some of the U.N. bodies and has nice color pictures. However, it gives no insight on which agencies provide the referenced assistance. The document is thus of questionable use, yet it is projected in your resolution as a major contribution to the dissemination of information on decolonization.

Further, you may recall that in 2007, the Department of Public Information, when queried, could give no indication as to whether the information which it says it disseminates has ever reached the territories themselves. DPI could not even confirm whether the UN Information Centres had a mandate to service the territories. In 2008, these questions remain unanswered. Yet again, the resolution you just adopted recognizes the role of the UN Information Centres in disseminating information to us.

This is but one of many examples of the disconnect between what the UN system says it does, and what actually gets done. Is there really any wonder why we continue to be non self-governing?

In the US Virgin Islands, the awareness among the people of the actual political status options available to them is virtually non-existent, despite decades of resolutions originating in this committee on the creation of education programs to heighten the awareness of these issues. The inability of this committee to require the UN departments to actually carry out committee decisions, is nothing short of tragic. What this inaction has fostered is the perception that the UN is impotent when it comes to decolonization, despite contrary statements from UNAVI. This has facilitated the political atmosphere which has found the US Virgin Islands and other United States - administered territories being told that the UN is no longer relevant to us, and that we are merely internal, domestic issues.

Indeed, an article published in the local on-line newspaper on the US Memorial Day celebrations held in the US Virgin Islands last month began with the statement “It's been almost 100 years since the territory became part of the United States”, and no one other than I, who wrote a letter to the editor in response, appeared to recognize that the statement was fundamentally incorrect.

How will this committee respond to these amazingly erroneous beliefs which are constant, often unstated, underlying premises in news stories, popular comments and political statements? Will this committee take issue with them in your resolution? Or will you simply ignore them?

This committee has referred to the current USVI Constitutional Convention as an aspect of our progress towards self-determination. Putting aside the fact that the US law authorizing the development of a local constitution clearly delimits its scope to the confines of our present colonial relationship, a recent exchange illustrates both the abdication of any responsibility by the administering power for the political education or political development of the territory and the lack of an informed consciousness within the territory.

As the USVI government has stated that it does not have the resources to fund the expenses of the Convention, the Governor requested technical assistance funding from the Office of Insular Affairs of the Department of the Interior of the administering power. The response came from an Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary and stated that “Because your drafting of a constitution is an exercise in self-government, we believe it important that the entire effort, including the financing, be accomplished locally...”

Firstly, the request was addressed by our Governor to a subdivision of the Interior Department rather than to the State Department, secondly; the response was in derogation of clear responsibilities of the administering power; and thirdly, this response was considered to be disappointing but not scandalous.

Clearly, a refusal to require that action be taken on the many valuable activities mandated in the annual resolutions is to turn aside from the stated purpose of this Committee. The United States itself responded in 2007 to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and acknowledged that there have been no changes in the political status of any of the US - administered territories. Is there a new purpose to simply legitimize status quo colonial arrangements as some new acceptable form of self-government, contrary to the real situation on the ground?

What happened to the case-by-case analysis which the committee adopted which would have provided detail on the current colonial arrangements?

What happened to the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate endorsed by the General Assembly which called for much needed political analysis to be done by an independent expert?

What happened to the proposal by the distinguished ambassador of Dominica at the opening of the Special Committee in February to create a working group to deal with the small territories?

It appears that all of these proposals designed to actually carry out the decolonization mandate have been systematically blocked, while the status quo continues. Thus, in 2008, less than two years before the second decade ends, we have repetitive resolutions with no apparent prospect of implementation, with the cycle repeating itself over and over, year after year. And the United States Virgin Islands actually moves further away from activities and from a mind set that encourage self determination.

Mr. Chairman,

We note with interest the decision of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its Seventh Session this May to convene an expert seminar on decolonization. UNAVI fully endorsed this approach to bring some expert analysis to these issues. Perhaps the conclusions of the Permanent Forum experts will provide this committee with much needed information on the dynamics of contemporary colonial arrangements.

Mr. Chairman,

The implementation of the decolonization mandate continues to require the full attention of UN member states. We in the territories who are committed to self-determination are deeply troubled that the UN appears to be ready to abandon the decolonization process at the end of this decade, declare victory, and move on. For our own sakes and in recognition of the many member states which emerged from colonialism, we appeal to you to demand that the UN system comply with your directives on decolonization.

I thank the committee for its time and attention.


*******************************************************************************

U.N. Committee Calls for General Assembly Consideration of Puerto Rico

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation for the second consecutive year has adopted a resolution calling for the U.N. General Assembly to deal directly with the issue of the self-determination of Puerto Rico.

This provision is contained in Operative Paragraph 7 of the resolution (reprinted below) which “requests the (U.N.) General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all of its aspects.” The same language was included in the 2007 committee resolution on the issue, and most speakers reiterated the view that the General Assembly must examine the case of Puerto Rico which had been removed from the U.N. list of non self-governing territories in 1953 following the adoption of an ‘autonomous’ status in their 1952 Constitution.

The U.N. also ‘de-listed’ the Netherlands Antilles in 1953 on the same premise that the arrangement of the six islands and Suriname on the South American coast was sufficiently autonomous. As it turned out, the Dutch had a better case than the Americans in terms of ‘autonomous sufficiency’ given the continued applicability to Puerto Rico (and the other four U.S. – administered territories) of the infamous Article IV(3) (2) of the U.S Constitution which states that the U.S. Congress has the right to “make all needful rules for territory or other property of the U.S.”

Equating territory (including colonised countries) with property still remains a rather sensitive subject into the 21st century, so other softer designations were invented over time to describe the territories, such as insular areas, offshore areas and the like. The terms ‘possessions’ and ‘offshore possessions’ still remain a favourite of the U.S. Congress in its legislation on the territories. It seems that equating territories as any ‘other property’ is very much alive. Changing this anachronistic terminology in future legislation where the territories are referenced might be a worthy project for the non-voting delegates of the territories.

The issue of a full measure of self-government became more complex in 1960 when the U.N. General Assembly adopted the “Decolonisation Declaration” (Resolution 1514 XV) which confirmed the inalienable right of self-determination of the people in those territories. The General Assembly on the same day also adopted the companion Resolution 1541 (XV) which identified and defined the three legitimate options of political equality, namely integration, free association and independence.

The question at that stage was whether the de-listing of territories before the definition was adopted was premature, and should be re-visited. While there was significant sentiment to that effect, there was not enough political will to act, given the composition of the U.N. in 1960 when most of Africa and Asia remained under colonial rule. The two resolutions did serve to intensify the momentum for self-determination in colonies throughout the world, including in Puerto Rico.

Since that time, the self-determination of Puerto Rico was kept very much alive by Puerto Ricans in the territory, as well as those who resided in other parts of the world. Political parties such as the Puerto Rico Independence Party, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party and the Puerto Rico Nationalist Party joined with non-governmental organisations to pressure the United Nations to keep the issue of the self-determination of Puerto Rico on the minds of U.N. member states. This resulted in a compromise decision by the Special Committee on Decolonisation to examine the case of Puerto Rico and adopt a decision on its self-determination. It was determined that the Special Committee decision would not be forwarded to the General Assembly for action (although the decision is contained in the committee’s report).

After some 26 resolutions and decision of the Special Committee regarding Puerto Rico – and now the 27th - it appears that the critical mass has been reached for the logical step to be taken by the General Assembly to act. It is observed that the earlier interest by a number of groups in having Puerto Rico‘re-listed’ appears no longer to be a consideration. In any event, both methods, re-listing, or having the case of Puerto Rico self-determination taken up directly by the General Assembly, would require Assembly approval. It appears that the consistent frustrations expressed by representatives of other territories already listed regarding the lack of implementation of decolonisation resolutions did not fall on deaf ears in Puerto Rico,and appears a determining factor in the Puerto Rico approach to bypass the re-listing process in favour of direct General Assembly consideration. This may prove to be a wise strategy.

This approach will undoubtedly require a considerable lobbying efort among U.N. member states who would be subjected to an expected political pressure directly to the political leadership on their respective capitals. If there is adherence to the resolutions of the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) on this matter, then such pressures should not matter, and a comfortable majority for support should emerge.

A summary of the United Nations press release on the United Nations on Puerto Rico appears below, along with the text of the resolution.


_____________________________________________________________________________________

United Nations Press Release


SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION ADOPTS TEXT CALLING ON UNITED STATES

TO EXPEDITE SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN PEOPLE

9th June 2008

The Special Committee on Decolonization today called upon the Government of the United States to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

In a resolution adopted by consensus, the decolonization body –- known formally as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -- requested the President of the United States to release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences for cases relating to the Territory’s struggle for independence and to the Vieques Island “peace struggle”.

The Special Committee, also known as the “Committee of 24”, urged the Government of the United States to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba; respect the fundamental human rights to health and economic development of their inhabitants; and expedite and cover the costs of decontaminating the areas previously used in military exercises.

Introducing the text, Cuba’s representative said that, while the Special Committee and the General Assembly had been adopting resolutions and decisions reaffirming the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence, the United States, as colonial Power, had tried by all means to consolidate its economic, political and social domination over the “brotherly Latin American and Caribbean country”. Because of its culture, history, traditions and especially its people’s unswerving will, Puerto Rico would continue to be a Latin American and Caribbean nation, with its own national identity. After the Special Committee’s adoption of the text, he said: “The adoption of this resolution today is a tribute to the patriotic spirit of the Puerto Rican people and the tradition of struggle led by their heroes, who are also the heroes of Cuba and all the Americas.”

This morning, the Special Committee heard 18 petitioners, who presented the views of various Puerto Rican groups, parties and organizations. Many requested the General Assembly to call on the United States to begin a just and equitable process to allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their right to self-determination, confirming to resolution 1514 (XV). Puerto Rican people could no longer tolerate that consideration of Puerto Rican self-determination be “parked in a corner of chimeras” by the Assembly, a representative of the Puerto Rico Bar Association said.

Among the issues that required attention, petitioners mentioned the imposition of the death penalty for federal crimes, despite its prohibition by the Constitution of Puerto Rico; extradition of those facing death penalty; occupation and environmental contamination of Vieques; political prisoners serving disproportionate sentences in United States jails; and rising federalization of Puerto Rican life.

Anibal Acevedo-Vilá, Governor of Puerto Rico, said the process of self-determination for the Puerto Rican people had not been concluded in 1952, when the General Assembly, on the request of the United States, had concluded that a new constitutional status had been reached that had attributes of “sovereignty”. The United States Government had not complied with its promises to the international community, and a recent White House report on the matter stated that Puerto Rico had only two options: integration as a federal state, or independence.

He recalled having written in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States had perpetuated a “monumental fraud”. The Department of State must officially notify the United Nations of its current position. While supporting neither statehood nor independence, but rather the autonomous status supported by the majority of Puerto Ricans, he was asking the Special Committee, as an elected official, to request the United States to explain inconsistencies between its position in the 1950s and its current position.

Accusing the Governor of supporting the status quo, State Senator José Carriga Pico said true self-determination would make Puerto Rico the fifty-first State of the United States, while Luis Vega Ramos, a Member of Puerto Rico’s House of Representatives, called for independence in free association with the administering Power.

Kenneth D. McClintock, President of the Puerto Rico Senate, disagreeing with many other petitioners, said that the Territory’s ultimate political status was essentially a domestic matter of the United States, to be decided by its citizens residing in Puerto Rico and the Congress. It was not incumbent upon the Special Committee or the General Assembly to take action on the status of Puerto Rico.

Speaking prior to the adoption of today’s draft resolution were the representatives of Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Panama, Venezuela, Dominica (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Syria, Iran, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Cuba.

The full U.N. press release can be found at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gacol3176.doc.htm

End


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Resolution adopted by United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation

on Puerto Rico


9th June 2008


The Special Committee,


Bearing in mind the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, as well as the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,


Considering that the period 1990-2000 was proclaimed by the General Assembly, in its resolution 43/47 of 22 November 1988, as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and that by resolution 55/146 of 8 December 2000, the General Assembly declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,


Bearing in mind the 26 resolutions and decisions adopted by the Special Committee on the question of Puerto Rico, contained in the reports of the Special Committee to the General Assembly, in particular those adopted without a vote in recent years,


Recalling that 25 July 2008 marks the one hundred and tenth anniversary of the intervention in Puerto Rico by the United States of America,
Noting with concern that despite the diverse initiatives taken by the political representatives of Puerto Rico and the United States in recent years, the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico has not yet been set in motion,


Stressing the urgent need for the United States to lay the groundwork for the full implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,


Noting that the inter-agency Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status designated by the President of the United States, which submitted its report on 22 December 2005, affirmed that Puerto Rico is a territory subject to United States congressional authority and that initiatives concerning Puerto Rico’s status have been subsequently presented to the Congress of the United States,


Also noting the “Panama Proclamation”, adopted by the Latin American and Caribbean Congress for the Independence of Puerto Rico, which was held in Panama from 17 to 19 November 2006 and attended by 33 political parties from 22 countries of the region,


Further noting the debate in Puerto Rico on the search for a procedure that would make it possible to launch the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico, and aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico,


Aware that Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, was used for over 60 years by the United States Marines to carry out military exercises, with negative consequences for the health of the population, the environment and the economic and social development of that Puerto Rican municipality,


Recalling the decision of the Government of the United States to put an end to the bombings and military exercises on Vieques Island from 1 May 2003, which was the outcome of the prolonged process conducted during years of peaceful protests carried out by the people of Puerto Rico as well as the wide campaign of international solidarity, which has been appropriately reflected in the work and documents of the Special Committee,


Noting the consensus existing among the people and the Government of Puerto Rico on the necessity of ensuring the clean-up, decontamination and return to the people of Puerto Rico of all the territory previously used for military exercises and installations, and of using them for the social and economic development of Puerto Rico,


Also noting the complaints made by the inhabitants of Vieques Island regarding the continued bombing and the use of open burning for clean-up, which exacerbate the existing health problems and pollution and endanger civilian lives,


Further noting the consensus among the people of Puerto Rico in favour of the release of the Puerto Rican political prisoners who have been serving sentences in United States prisons for more than 27 years for cases related to the struggle for Puerto Rico’s independence, as well as those serving sentences for cases related to the Vieques Island struggle for peace,


Noting the concern of the people of Puerto Rico regarding violent actions, including repression and intimidation, against Puerto Rican independence fighters in Puerto Rico, including those that have recently come to light through documents declassified by federal agencies of the United States,


Also noting that in the final document of the Fourteenth Summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Havana from 11 to 16 September 2006, and at other meetings of the Movement, the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence is reaffirmed on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV); the Government of the United States is urged to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence; the Government of the United States is urged to return the territory and occupied installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation; and the General Assembly is urged to actively consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects,


Having heard statements and testimonies representative of various viewpoints among the people of Puerto Rico and their social institutions,


Having considered the report of the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on the implementation of the resolutions concerning Puerto Rico,


1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the applicability of the fundamental principles of that resolution to the question of Puerto Rico;


2. Reiterates that the Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation that has its own unequivocal national identity;


3. Calls upon the Government of the United States of America to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico;


4. Notes the broad support of eminent persons, governments and political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean for the independence of Puerto Rico;


5. Also notes the debate in Puerto Rico on the implementation of a mechanism that would ensure the full participation of representatives of all viewpoints prevailing in Puerto Rico, aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico;


6. Expresses serious concern regarding actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and encourages the investigation of those actions with the necessary rigor and with the cooperation of the relevant authorities;


7. Requests the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all its aspects;


8. Urges the Government of the United States, in line with the need to guarantee the Puerto Rican people their legitimate right to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to the people of Puerto Rico; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of the process of cleaning up and decontaminating the impact areas previously used in military exercises through means that do not continue to aggravate the serious consequences of its military activity for the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment;


9. Requests the President of the United States of America to release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences in United States prisons for over 27 years for cases relating to the struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico, as well as those serving sentences for cases relating to the Vieques Island peace struggle;


10. Takes note with satisfaction of the report prepared by the Rapporteur of the Special Committee,1 in compliance with its resolution of 14 June 2007;


11. Requests the Rapporteur to report to the Special Committee in 2009 on the implementation of the present resolution;


12. Decides to keep the question of Puerto Rico under continuous review

UN Committee Approves Resolutions on Information and Visiting Missions

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation adopted three resolutions on 27th May 2008 at the beginning of its substantive session. The texts read virtually identical to the 2007 resolutions adopted by the committee, and vary little from those adopted annually by the committee since before the beginning of the decade.

The resolutions provide some formidable activities that if carried out over the years of their adoption would have moved the decolonisation process significantly ahead. However, the level of UN implementation has not kept pace with the activities prescribed, necesitating the repetition of the projected activities each year.

The texts now go to the U.N. Fourth Committee for consideration in the fall before being considered by the full General Assembly for adoption in early December.

The text of the resolutions are reproduced below.


_____________________________________________________________________________________


A/AC.109/2008/L.4


Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted
under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations


The General Assembly,


Recalling its resolution 1970 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, in which it requested the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to study the information transmitted to the Secretary-General in accordance with Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations and to take such information fully into account in examining the situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,


Recalling also its resolution 62/112 of 17 December 2007, in which it requested the Special Committee to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under resolution 1970 (XVIII),


Stressing the importance of timely transmission by the administering Powers of adequate information under Article 73 e of the Charter, in particular in relation to the preparation by the Secretariat of the working papers on the Territories concerned,


Having examined the report of the Secretary-General,


1. Reaffirms that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly itself that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, the administering Power concerned should continue to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter with respect to that Territory;


2. Requests the administering Powers concerned, in accordance with their Charter obligations, to transmit or continue to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories for which they are respectively responsible, as well as the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned, including the constitution, legislative act or executive order providing for the government of the Territory and the constitutional relationship of the Territory to the administering Power, within a maximum period of six months following the expiration of the administrative year in those Territories;


3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure that adequate information is drawn from all available published sources in connection with the preparation of the working papers relating to the Territories concerned;


4. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII), in accordance with established procedures.




**************


A/AC.109/2008/L.5

Dissemination of information on decolonization




The General Assembly,


Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the dissemination of information on decolonization and publicity for the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization,


Recalling General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and other resolutions and decisions of the United Nations concerning the dissemination of information on decolonization, in particular Assembly resolution 61/129 of 14 December 2006,


Recognizing the need for flexible, practical and innovative approaches towards reviewing the options of self-determination for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories with a view to implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,


Reiterating the importance of dissemination of information as an instrument for furthering the aims of the Declaration, and mindful of the role of world public opinion in effectively assisting the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self-determination,


Recognizing the role played by the administering Powers in transmitting information to the Secretary-General in accordance with the terms of Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,


Recognizing also the role of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, through the United Nations information centres, in the dissemination of information at the regional level on the activities of the United Nations,


Welcoming the issuance by the Department, in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme, the specialized agencies and the Special Committee, of an information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories,


Aware of the role of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization,


1. Approves the activities in the field of dissemination of information on decolonization undertaken by the Department of Public Information and the Department of Political Affairs of the Secretariat, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization, in particular the preparation, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/129, of the information leaflet entitled “What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories”, issued in March 2007, and encourages wide dissemination of the information leaflet;


2. Considers it important to continue and expand its efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization, with particular emphasis on the options of self-determination available for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to this end, requests the Department of Public Information to empower the United Nations information centres in the relevant regions to disseminate material to the Non-Self-Governing Territories;


3. Requests the Secretary-General to further enhance the information provided on the United Nations decolonization website by including the full series of reports of the regional seminars on decolonization, the statements and scholarly papers presented at those seminars and links to the full series of reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;


4. Requests the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non Self-Governing Territories;


5. Requests the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available, including publications, radio and television, as well as the Internet, to give publicity to the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization and, inter alia:


(a) To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories;


(b) To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;


(c) To explore the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;


(d) To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;


(e) To encourage the involvement of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;


(f) To report to the Special Committee on measures taken in the implementation of the present resolution;


6. Requests all States, including the administering Powers, to accelerate the dissemination of information referred to in paragraph 2 above;


7. Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine this question and to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session on the implementation of the present resolution.




***********
A/AC.109/2008/L.6

Question of sending visiting and special missions to Territories


The Special Committee,


Having considered the question of sending visiting missions to Territories,


Recalling the relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee requesting the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the United Nations by receiving visiting missions in the Territories under their administration,


Mindful that United Nations visiting missions provide an effective means of assessing the situation in those Territories and of ascertaining the wishes and aspirations of the peoples thereof regarding their future status,


Conscious that United Nations visiting missions enhance the capacity of the United Nations to assist the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories in attaining the objectives set forth in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, in other relevant resolutions of the Assembly and in the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,


Noting with appreciation the continuing exemplary cooperation of New Zealand, as an administering Power, in the work of the Special Committee, and that, at the invitation of the Government of New Zealand, two missions to observe the referendums in Tokelau were dispatched, in February 2006 and October 2007,


Recalling with satisfaction the cooperation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, in facilitating the United Nations special mission to the Turks and Caicos Islands in April 2006 at the request of the territorial Government,


Recalling the importance of the previously expressed desire of the territorial Governments of American Samoa and of Anguilla for a visiting mission by the Special Committee,


1. Stresses the need to dispatch periodic visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories in order to facilitate the full, speedy and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with respect to those Territories, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization and the plan of action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism;1


2. Calls upon the administering Powers that have not yet done so to cooperate or continue to cooperate with the United Nations by facilitating United Nations visiting missions to the Territories under their administration, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization;


3. Requests the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee in exploring the possibility of undertaking visiting or special missions in furtherance of the decolonization mandate of the General Assembly;


4. Requests its Chair to continue consultations with the administering Powers concerned and to report thereon to the Special Committee on the results of those consultations.

U.N. Secretary-General Declares Decolonisation ‘Incomplete’

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has declared that “the monumental task (of decolonisation) is as yet complete.” In a message read on his behalf to a Pacific intergovernmental meeting of the Special Committee on Decolonisation which convened in Bandung, Indonesia from 15th to 17th May, the Secretary-General said that “colonialism has no place in today’s world,” and “urge(d) all administering powers to actively engage with the United Nations in discharging the U.N. mandate on decolonisation.” The Secretary General’s message went on to “encourage all parties to continue working together to complete the decolonisation process in every one of the remaining 16 non self-governing territories.”

As the statement from the Secretary-General was being read, it was reported that a group of students from West Papua were demonstrating outside the conference site in favour of the re-inscription of that territory on United Nations List of Non Self-Governing Territories.

Regional Meetings on Decolonisation

The annual intergovernmental meetings on decolonisation are held by the Special Committee on Decolonisation during alternating years in United Nations member countries in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, respectively. The sessions are funded through the UN regular budget and attended by a representative portion of UN member states of the Special Committee as chosen by the various regional groups. Participants also include representatives from some of the 16 territorial governments formally listed by the UN as non self-governing, along with several non-governmental organisations. Others are invited in their individual capacity, as identified by the U.N. Secretariat.

In the 1990s, representative groups from territories not on the U.N. list were permitted to observe the proceedings without directly participating. In recent years, however, this practice was ended at the behest of some administering powers who did not want any recognition of the colonial nature of territories under their administration. A number of these territories had been prematurely removed from the UN list in the past.

The rather unusual rules of procedure for these regional meetings provide that only the UN member states of the Special Committee are permitted to serve on the Drafting Committee which agrees the final report of the meeting based on the text provided by the Secretariat. In past conferences, this draft text has often omitted certain views considered adverse to the position of some member states. In some cases, recommendations have been included in the report on issues that were never discussed at the meeting. The report is ultimately adopted by the Special Committee at UN Headquarters where the text is discussed, and often further amended by UN member states who may or may not have attended the regional meeting.

These meetings were originally conceived as part of the Plan of Action (POA) of the First International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (1991-2000) adopted by the UN General Assembly. The sessions were meant as a good faith effort to bring all of the parties to the table for frank and open discussions aimed at accelerating the decolonisation process. The meetings were also an activity contained in the POA of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, which was identical to the POA of the first International Decade, because of the limited implementation of the earlier recommendations.

An assessment on the POA of the First International Decade, and a mid-term review of the Second International Decade were presented by an international expert at previous regional meetings of the Special Committee. These assessments were published by the journal Overseas Territories Report, and are available upon request to: overseasreview@yahoo.com.

The meeting venue of Bandung was the site of the formation of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) which served to intensify and organise the global effort to end colonialism in most of Africa, and Asia, and major parts of the Caribbean and Pacific. Amid the lack of implementation of UN General Assembly decolonisation resolutions, it was hoped that the historical importance of the venue would serve to stimulate an otherwise dormant UN system to undertake methods to re-start a “stalled” decolonisation process, as it has been characterised by the UN Office of International Oversight Services (OIOS).

Concerns have been expressed, however, that the “repetition of process,” which characterises the contemporary UN treatment of the matter, would contribute to UN “decolonisation fatigue” leading to what many fear as an attempt to legitimise the present colonial arrangements, for expediency. The aim of this approach is said to be the ultimate removal of the territories from the UN list – not by achieving a full measure of self-government, but rather by changing the definition of self-government. Sadly, the UN continues to skillfully avoid undertaking the case-by-case review process for each territory – a mechanism annually adopted by the UN General Assembly - to assess the dynamics of the present colonial arrangements in each territory.

Amid the limitations, some participants in past regional decolonisation sessions have succeeded in inserting some provisions that reflect contemporary decolonisation concerns in the meeting report. The 2006 Pacific Decolonisation Meeting had relevant provisions to this effect:


• As long as administering powers exercise unilateral authority to make laws and other regulations affecting the Non Self-Governing Territories without their consent, pursuant to such methods as legislation, orders in council and other methods, a territory should not be considered self-governing.

• There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination which is also a fundamental human right.

• The inalienable rights of the people of the Non Self-Governing Territories must be guaranteed by the United Nations and the Special Committee in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960.

• The UN should develop a programme to disseminate information with the aim of raising public awareness in the territories in order to heighten people’s understanding of the legitimate political status options available to them in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, including the 1960 (Decolonisation) Declaration.

• All Non Self-Governing Territories should be given access to relevant United Nations programmes in the economic and social sphere, including those emanating from the plans of action of the major summits and conferences, in furtherance of capacity-building and consistent with the necessary preparation for the attainment of as full measure of full internal self-government.

Some of this language is later contained in the General Assembly resolutions. The 2007 Caribbean Decolonisation meeting for the Caribbean held in Grenada included similar provisions, identical in most cases with 2006 (and earlier). There were also a few new “qualifying” considerations which appear to have been inserted to support attempts at the legitimisation of “colonialism by consent,” or “voluntary colonialism.” These qualifiers included:

• Reference to the “view of some meeting participants on the need to consider the adoption of new thinking on decolonisation within the context of the current global realities.”

• Reference to what was described as “the array of legitimate transitions to self-determination, provided that the people of a territory have the opportunity to make a full and informed choice.”

This language is vague enough to be rendered meaningless, but there is no doubt as to the intention of its inclusion. It will be interesting to see whether the recommendations from the 2008 seminar will also contain these references, or whether the spirit of Bandung will generate recognition of the significance of their negative implications. A full analysis of the recommendations of the Bandung decolonisation meeting is forthcoming upon its conclusion.

U.N. Indigenous Forum Adopts Decolonisation Agenda

The United Nations (U.N.) Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) at its Seventh Session held in New York ended its two-week session on 2nd May 2008 with the adoption of recommendations to implement the U.N.’s dormant decolonisation agenda. These recommendations were based on the conclusions of the half-day discussion on the Pacific region where a host of non-governmental organisations expressed concerns for the lack of implementation of the United Nations decolonisation mandate, and offered solutions to jump-start the process.


Relevant Recommendations on Decolonisation adopted at the Seventh Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

• The Permanent Forum recommends that an expert seminar be held, without financial implications, and invites the participation of the Committee on the Elimination of racial Discrimination and the Special Committee on Decolonisation to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonisation process on indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories which are now or have been listed on the United Nations list of Non Self-Governing Territories. The Permanent Forum requests that independent experts and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples be invited to participate in the seminar. Furthermore, the Forum requests that indigenous peoples under non self-governing territories status also be invited.

• The Permanent Forum expresses its concern for the human rights of indigenous peoples in the non self-governing territories in the Pacific region and calls on the Human Rights Council to designate a Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples of those Territories.

• The Permanent Forum invites the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to examine and report on the situation of the human rights of indigenous peoples in non self-governing territories of the Pacific region and urges relevant States to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur for that purpose.

• The Permanent Forum invites the Chairman of the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) to report on the decolonisation process within the Pacific region to the Permanent Forum at its eighth session in 2009.

The momentum of the successful Pacific initiative leading to the adoption of the Permanent Forum recommendations was given great impetus following the adoption by the by the United Nations General Assembly on 13th December 2007 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the Declaration confirmed that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination (and) by virtue of that right freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Article 4 of the Declaration indicates that in exercising this right, indigenous peoples “have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters related to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.”


Pacific Position

An extensive paper presented to the Seventh Session of the Forum by Mililani Trask, Director of the Indigenous World Association and a coalition of Pacific indigenous organisations, expressed the dilemma faced by indigenous peoples over United Nations reluctance to enact the measures its General Assembly had adopted for decades in the areas of self-determination and decolonisation. The paper, which was also endorsed by a number of Caribbean indigenous organisations, was published in its entirety in the May edition Overseas Territories Report (OTR), and can be obtained from OTR at overseasreview@yahoo.com.

In her statement, Director Trask pointed out that ‘international law concedes that the peoples of the non self-governing territories are denied the most important of all human rights, the right of self-governance,” and that (U.N. member) “states were to assist these peoples in attaining a full measure of self-government.” She recalled that since the Cold War ended, only on non self-governing territory (Timor Leste) had achieved this full measure of self-government, and that a number of territories “remain in a state of political disenfranchisement as colonies of the Administering States.” In this connection, Trask listed Guam and American Samoa under United States administration, Kanaki – New Caledonia under French jurisdiction, Pitcairn under United Kingdom control, and Tokelau under New Zealand supervision as indications of the existing colonial arrangements formally recognised by the United Nations. Also recognised by the U.N. are the Caribbean colonial territories including the U.S. Virgin Islands under U.S. administration, and Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla under United Kingdom jurisdiction.

Trask also made reference to territories such as French Occupied Polynesia, Easter Island, Hawaii and Alaska which had been removed from UN list of non self-governing territories, but whose situation nevertheless had been raised both in the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and in the Human Rights Council. She made specific reference to the failure of the U.N. Decolonisation Committee to respond to requests from the CERD for information related to racism in the territories “for 19 consecutive years,” and commented that “it appears that we are dealing with a situation of institutionalized racism.”

The Pacific statement went on to recount the different U.N. bodies which have ignored the legislative mandate from the General Assembly on decolonisation including the Special Committee on Decolonisation, various specialised agencies and technical organs, and other U.N. bodies. A plan of implementation to this effect had even been endorsed repeatedly by the U.N. General Assembly, but its implementation has been ignored by the wider U.N. system, giving substance to the adage that “all U.N. resolutions are equal, but some resolutions are more equal than others.” The Pacific statement recalled that “for ten years, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had repeatedly requested that the (U.N.) Secretariat of the Special Committee produce reports related to the implementation of the U.N. decolonisation resolutions,” pursuant to repeated resolutions of the General Assembly. The statement went on to recount in detail the many failures of the U.N. system to live up to its international obligations.

The Pacific statement also brought to the attention of the meeting that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) had adopted in 2004 a recommendation which “request(ed) the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples (to) undertake a study on the United Nations decolonisation process and the Special Committee on Decolonisation to assess its historical and current impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories.”

The 2004 recommendation of the Permanent Forum also “request(ed) the U.N. Secretary-General to undertake a mid-decade review on the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism to determine whether substantial progress (had) been made in achieving the goals of the Second Decade and to identify proposals for addressing obstacles in achieving (those goals).” Similar to the recommendations in the UN General Assembly resolutions, these decisions of the Permanent Forum have not been undertaken.

Other statements supported the concerns expressed by Ms. Trask. Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Caucus, Malia Nobrega, a member of the Indigenous World Association, Na Koa Ikaika o ka Lahui Hawaki’i and the Waikiki Hawaiian Civic Club focused considerable attention on human rights issues. In this connection, she noted that “much of the human rights deprivations in the Pacific (loss of cultural integrity, inability to protect our ancestor’s remains, alienation from traditional lands, etc.) are inextricably linked to our international personalities as non self-governing territories (both presently and formerly listed NSGTs).”

Ms. Nobrega ermphasised that “the human rights ‘situation’ in these territories is abhorrent and serves as the most powerful challenge to U.N. legitimacy.” She expressed deep concern that “the U.N. engages in ‘colonial accommodation,’ as it is well known that the Special Committee on Decolonisation remains at best lamentably ineffective and at worst an active participant in the systematic denial of the indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories to the most basic human right of self-determination.”

Kai’opua Fyfe, Director of the Koani Foundation, also addressed the Permanent Forum on behalf of the Hawai’i Caucus and Affiliated Organisations on the same matter. Director Fyfe began with emphasizing that the objective of his presentation was to “overcome the obstacles that have blocked progress in achieving the goals of the Second Decade of Eradicating Colonialism, particularly as they applied to Hawai’i Ka Pae’ Aina.” He proceeded with a chronology of events related to the history of the annexation of Hawai’i including its placement on the U.N. list of non self-governing territories in 1946, and the events which led to the removal of the territory from the U.N. list in 1959 – one year before the adoption by the U.N. General Assembly of the landmark Decolonisation Declaration. The presentation favoured the re-inscription of Hawai’i to the U.N. list of non self-governing territories. Reference was also made to U.S. Public Law 103-150 of 1993 in which the U.S. officially apologized for its 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, and to the shadow report on the violation of human rights of Native Hawaiians submitted to the 86th Session of the Human Rights Committee “refuting assertions by the USA that it had fulfilled its international obligations regarding the Kingdom of Hawai’i.”

Director Fyfe advised that the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations and recommendations on the adherence to the right to self-determination under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) expressed “regret that it had not received sufficient information on the consequences on the situation of Indigenous Hawaiian Peoples for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Hawaiian people.” He also made reference to the petition of the Koani Foundation presented to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on the recommendation of the experts of the Human Rights Committee.

Yet another statement from the Pacific was presented by Julian Aguon on behalf of the Indigenous Chomoru People’s Nation and Affiliated Indigenous Chomoru Organisations. Mr. Aguon’s presentation forces on the impact of the United States military build-up in Guam following the closing of the operations in Okinawa, Japan. Aguon argued that the “massive military expansion exacts devastating consequences on (the Chamoru people…who already suffer the signature maladies of a colonial condition.” He went further to explain that “this aggressive militarization of our homeland endangers our fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination, the exercise of which our administering power, the United States, has strategically denied us – in glaring betrayal of its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, to name but some.”

He also made reference to the fact that representatives from Guam had come to the UN Headquarters in New York “year after year, at great personal cost, appealing to the UN to follow through with its mandate,” (but after) almost thirty years of testimony, (there had been) nothing to show for it.” He went on to say that “the failure of the U.S. to honour its international obligations to Guam and her native people, the non-responsiveness of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation to our rapid deterioration and the overall non-performance of relevant US and UN Decolonisation organs and officials combine to carry our small chance of survival to its final coffin.”

Focus now shifts to the implementation of the Permanent Forum recommendations.